Distributed Voting: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Aldo Tragni (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
Aldo Tragni (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 32:
v1 := new value of candidate X.
P := 100 (total points used in a vote)
<math>\begin{equation}
v1=\frac{v0}{1-\frac{e}{P}}
\end{equation}</math>
===Vote without 0 points===
If the only candidate C with 0 points is eliminated from a vote like this A[80] B[20] C[0], there are 2
# A[100] B[0] : set the candidate with the least points to 0.
# A[80] B[20] : having eliminated C (0 points), there aren't points to redistribute.
Eg. given the following 2 votes to count: V1-A[55] B[45] C[0] and V2-A[0] B[100] C[0] then:
*using procedure 1, a tie is obtained between A and B.
*using procedure 2, B would win.
V1 likes A and B almost in the same way, so the victory of B would make both V1 and V2 happy. For this reason it's recommended to use procedure 2, which keeps the voter's honest interests even in the counting.
===Vote with only 0 points===
Line 55 ⟶ 56:
If the only candidate C with points is eliminated from a vote like this A[0] B[0] C[100], you can proceed in 2 ways:
#
#
Using procedure 2 you get a vote that:
Line 70 ⟶ 71:
Cases of parity can occur during counting, as in the following example:
The tie can be managed in various ways:
*delete C first, obtaining a result. Delete D first, getting another result. Check that the two results return the same winners.
*delete C and D at the same time.
*randomly delete C or D.
This situation is extremely rare, and even when it occurs it's further rare that the order in which the candidates in the tie are eliminated affects the result. Random deletion is the easiest to use.
===Procedure variant (discouraged)===
* When the worst is eliminated, the candidates with the lowest score among those left in the vote must be set to 0, and then normalizes.
* Surplus Handling is used in the case of [[Multi-Member System|Multi-Winner]].
==Other properties==
Line 90 ⟶ 103:
===Equality===
By "Equality" means "
* In the Distributed Voting the voters at the beginning all have 100 points to distribute according to their preferences, therefore Equality is satisfied.
Line 106 ⟶ 119:
#the candidates' chances of winning aren't known enough. In this case, [[Free Riding]] doesn't occur and the voter tends to vote honestly.
Using the [[Surplus Handling]]:
Using the [[Surplus Handling]], in addition to increasing the complexity of the counting, reduces the tactic number 2 and greatly increases the tactic number 1, to the point that this would be used even when the voters don't know enough the chances of victory of the candidates. The [[Surplus Handling]] in the Distributed Voting would also cancel the [[Distributed Voting#Equality|Equality]] in some steps of the count.▼
▲
* cancel the [[Distributed Voting#Equality|Equality]] in some steps of the count.
* increase the complexity of the counting.
* if a voter votes A[99] B[1] C[0] ..., in case A wins by getting double the threshold, the voter would be very satisfied with A's victory, then move half the points from A to B would mean giving the voter extra unjustified power.
For these reasons it's better to avoid using Surplus Handling in Distributed Voting.
Line 124 ⟶ 143:
If the seats had different fractional value, in addition to determining the winning candidates, Distributed Voting also determine their % of victory, which are already indicated by the sum of the points of the winning candidates, remaining at the end of the counting.
Eg 1: a streamer wants to talk about 3 topics in a 4-hour live, chosen by his supporters through a poll. With Distributed Voting the 3 winning arguments A,B,C would also have associated the % of victory: A[50%] B[26%] C[24%]. These % indicate to the streamer that he must devote 2 hours to topic A, and 1 hour to topics B and C. Without these %, the streamer would have mistakenly spent 1 hour and 20 min for each of the topics.
Eg 2: on a crowdfunding platform, fans can have a different weight in the vote, based on how much money they have donated. In Distributed Voting you can manage directly this difference in power by assigning fans different amounts of points
Eg 3: in an image contest, there is a cash prize to be awarded to the 3 best images. The prize will be divided appropriately according to the % of victory and not in a pre-established way before the contest.
▲Eg: on a crowdfunding platform, fans can have a different weight in the vote, based on how much money they have donated. In Distributed Voting you can manage directly this difference in power by assigning fans different amounts of points/votes to distribute.
===Vote writing===
|